Anybody with enough money for a pair of good audiophile headphones will be buying the "pro" beats, which have neutral sound by all reports (I've never tested them).

It's not hard at all! Just throw yourself at the ground and miss.

Android doesn't sandbox apps.

iOS does, and it doesn't suffer from this problem. All software is given a directory that they can read from/write to. There are a few places outside that which can be read, but virtually nothing has write access (except for a few cases where a system app will expose access to it's data via inter-app communication. Calendar for example has this).

When you uninstall the app, that directory is deleted. There is no trace at all that the app ever existed.

Apple took a different approach on iOS.

OS X suffers the same problems as Windows, although perhaps not as severe.

"Balic goes on to explain to Apple that he was able to try over 20,000 passwords combinations on any account."

20,000 is not a brute force attack. That will only succeed if your password was 3 characters long.

I find it hard to believe anyone was actually vulnerable to this.

I use my phone more often than any other possession I own.

This means any extra money I spend on top of what I "need" is well worth it.

FWIW, I purchased a 5s a few days ago. Not a 6.

My sister is just using Safari on her PowerMac G5.

Anything with flash is pig slow... but most stuff still works. The kids play lots of games without any issues.

Bose also targets youth, although they do a terrible job of it and are getting their ass kicked by Beats.

And Beats also targets musicians with their "Pro" headphone which is not bass hungry at all and has higher quality than anything Bose has ever shipped. As far as I can tell, Beats Pro are some of the best studio headphones money can buy at the moment. If they weren't so expensive I would probably own a pair.

Apple filed a patent lawsuit against HTC in 2010, and Samsung in 2011. According to Wikipedia, are the only two patent lawsuits Apple has ever filed in the entire history of the company.

Both those lawsuits only happened after Apple spent years trying to negotiate their disagreements without involving the legal system.

A company that has only filed two lawsuits hardly has a "playbook" for suing people for patent infringement.

Fibreglass is terrible at all of the things you just listed and we use it for all kinds of things. It just has to be coated with a thin protective layer.

Apple is also a trademark, so they are not allowed to use that in advertising either.

I'm not familiar with Mexican law either but these laws are pretty well unified by international treaties. You cannot use another company's trademark in your advertising material unless you have permission. Any carrier who sells the iPhone to customers would have permission to use the trademark, so this tells me the carrier does not sell iPhones and therefore has no business using iPhone in their ads.

This is one of many reasons why I like Safari -you have to jump into the command line settings to *enable* backspace-to-go-back.

It's definitely the best browser available, in terms of getting little things like this right.

Darwin is open source too, so you can fork it and install whatever apps you want.

The fact is most people stick with the official release. Your platform is not "open" if your official release if third party extensions aren't allowed.

It's worth mentioning the (non-mobile) version of Safari does allow arbitrary third party extensions. There are some warnings to the user that it might be malware, but they don't block installation.

A server cannot ask for encryption.

Unless the client establishes a secure connection in the first place, the server has no way of knowing if the client is actually who they claim to be. If the client attempts to establish a secure connection and the server responds with "I can't give you a secure connection" then the client needs to assume there is a man in the middle attack going on and refuse to communicate with the server.

There is no way around it, security needs to be initiated on the client and the server cannot be allowed to refuse a secure connection.

HSTS is a partial solution for this problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security)

I don't think HTTP has any problems with security. All the real world problems with HTTP security are caused by:

  * dismally slow roll out of dnssec. It should have been finished years ago, but it has barely even started.
  * the high price of acquiring an SSL certificate (it's just bits!).
  * slow rollout of IPv6 (SSL certificates generally require a unique IP and we don't have enough to give every domain name a unique IP).
  * arguments in the industry about how to revoke a compromised SSL certificate, which has lead to revocation being almost useless.
  * SSL doesn't really work when there are thousands of certificate authorities, so some changes are needed to cope with the current situation (eg: dsnssec could be used to prevent two certificate authorities from signing the same domain name)